Talk:Trilfuva
Twin and partner cities I'm sorry if I moved Paris and Rome to a sub-section for partner cities, but its because France and Italy signed a treaty where they expressed "Only Paris is worthy of Rome" and "Only Rome is worthy of Paris". Therefore, neither the two cities have sister cities but partner cities. Sir Spart Sparklbox 14:37, December 21, 2009 (UTC) It's true, just because it's "your world" is not a legit reason to allow them to be sister cities. Alternatively, you could sign an agreement with them where each of them was sister cities with the other two. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 15:09, December 21, 2009 (UTC) Yes, I know. Until I came here, I didn't know that all the cities that Paris and Rome were twinned with were not twinned with them at all, just partnered. [[User:Tharnton345|'Tur']][[User talk:Tharnton345|'bo']] 10:54, December 22, 2009 (UTC) Population Especially if it doesn't include the metropolitan area, 14 million is a lot for a city, especially a country with only 24 million people. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:58, January 24, 2010 (UTC) Meh, Tokyo has 36 million. What should Trilfuva's population be then? [[User:Tharnton345|'Tur']][[User talk:Tharnton345|'bo']] 18:16, February 4, 2010 (UTC) I suggest about 1 to 4 millions. That are acceptable limits. Sir Spart Sparklbox 19:52, February 4, 2010 (UTC) Perhaps 3 million for the entire metropolitan area. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:27, February 4, 2010 (UTC) Definitely not. About 7 million at least. [[User:Tharnton345|'Tur']][[User talk:Tharnton345|'bo']] 19:41, February 5, 2010 (UTC) Considering the population of Leubantia, that's a bit much. Perhaps 4. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:41, February 5, 2010 (UTC) Trilfuva is Leubantia's biggest city. [[User:Tharnton345|'Tur']][[User talk:Tharnton345|'bo']] 10:40, February 6, 2010 (UTC) But it has lots of other cities. Also, NYC only have 8 million, but the whole US has over 300 million. That's maybe a fortieth of the population. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:07, February 6, 2010 (UTC) 6 million entirley. [[User:Tharnton345|'Tur']][[User talk:Tharnton345|'bo']] 18:26, February 6, 2010 (UTC) That's definitely stretching it, I strongly recommend 3 million. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:57, February 6, 2010 (UTC) WTF? Definitely not. [[User:Tharnton345|'Tur']][[User talk:Tharnton345|'bo']] 19:09, February 6, 2010 (UTC) WTF? Leubantia only has 24 million. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:10, February 6, 2010 (UTC) WTF? 6 million for the metropolitan area. [[User:Tharnton345|'Tur']][[User talk:Tharnton345|'bo']] 19:12, February 6, 2010 (UTC) LOL? If you say so. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:14, February 6, 2010 (UTC) Leubansky How do you write "City of Trilfuva" in Leubansky? And also, in Leubanksy, "Fuva" should mean fort if doesn't. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:08, March 31, 2010 (UTC) Improving Just wanted to say i think you guys are doing a great job improving this article now =) The Emperor Zelos 11:54, March 31, 2010 (UTC) Style Trilfuva was in a communist state during the most important development years of its life, i.e. after World War II to right next to today. And, assuming that all communist countries follow the Soviet model, the Leubantian government essentially destroyed what was left of the "bourgeoisie" style of pre-communist Trilfuva and replaced it with "proletariat-supporting" Stalinist grandeur. SO with those two assumptions, I think Trilfuva should look more or less like Moscow, with new sections looking more like Berlin, perhaps, but not so much, because Leubantia is in Eastern Europe, solidly within the sphere of Soviet->Russian influence. Discuss. Woogers(lol what ) 13:20, April 2, 2010 (UTC) : Hey Woogers, I think, this is a wrong assumption. Those cities were rebuilt in Stalinist style, which were either destroyed in WWII (e.g. Warsaw, Berlin), or were developed extensively, exploiting vast resources (e.g. Soviet cities, Bucharest). If you check Prague, my hometown, Budapest, or the Baltic capitals, they are characterised by traditional and fin-de-siècle architecture. Obviously, there were massive industrial, and residential estate developments, mostly in the outskirts, but the general image of these cities was not influenced too strongly. :Thyles 16:00, April 7, 2010 (UTC) :If I remember reading correctly, Leubantia was an Axis nation? Making another wild assumption, let's say the Soviets invaded Leubantia and held it so they could reinforce their troops marching on Berlin through Poland, sacking and destroying Trilfuva correctly. Woogers(lol what ) 16:43, April 7, 2010 (UTC) :: Yeah, that sounds just great, Leubantia would've been an extremely important battlefield due to its location. Since they are Germanic, nazis would've regarded them as "Aryans", say Leubantia had a nazi puppet government between 1939-44, then the red war machine wiped out everything, leaving nothing but ruins behind. So we could have a real Stalinist monster city, as Trilfuva. I'm so bored with the LA Aon as local landmark, anyway :D Thyles 17:31, April 7, 2010 (UTC) Leubantia actually had the "Fascist" party in control and a Fascist prime minister since sometime in the 1930s, I had found a good casus for entering WW2 (revenge on France (french empire ftw), something else I forgot), then Soviets invaded and occupied. Also, why would they destroy Trilfuva? I didn't know the Stalin enjoyed destroying cities. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:34, April 7, 2010 (UTC) Lol WUT. Stalin GOT IT IN in Berlin for revenge for Stalingrad and Leningrad. They left Berlin in ruins almost. Since Leubantia was a central Axis power, and the closest to the Soviets, I feel that Trilfuva would get the same treatment or worse. Woogers(lol what ) 18:49, April 7, 2010 (UTC) Oh yeah. But Leubantia mostly fought in Western Europe, and sent little or no forces to invade the Soviet Union. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:09, April 7, 2010 (UTC) :How did Leubantia fight in Western Europe, with the Reich and the occupied Denmark in between? Even if it had maintained its independence (which I highly doubt) it could not have fought on the western front. Also, it didn't attack the USSR, Soviets came as they marched on Berlin. Secondly, you don't need a motive to destroy a city, a battle or siege lasting months is enough. Thyles 19:21, April 7, 2010 (UTC) Lol, it must have been another illogical thing from Tharnton's history. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:35, April 7, 2010 (UTC) Water I am working on a map of Leubantia. Is it okay to make Trilfuva coastal and on the canal? —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 01:21, April 18, 2010 (UTC) Trilfuva is on the banks of the Frigabu river, not the coast, so it is not Ok. And the canal is weird, Tharnton never wrote about it so I have no idea where it is except that it is in the middle of the country. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:39, April 18, 2010 (UTC) A lot of important cities are on rivers and oceans/seas. Look at Hong Kong (Pearl), Dublin (Liffey), St. Petersburg (some river of which the name I forget), Ho Chi Minh City (Mekong), Shanghai (Yangtze), Bangkok (Chao Phraya), Lisbon (Tagus), and thousands and thousands of smaller cities like Brownsville (Rio Grande) or Gdańsk (Vistula). And on my map, the Frigabu isn't even a major river, but it's a small one. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:08, April 18, 2010 (UTC) Well, it still should be inland. And also, lots of important cities are on rivers but not oceans/seas. Such as Moscow (Volga), London (Thames), etc. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:55, April 18, 2010 (UTC) Moscow is not on the Volga. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 14:07, April 18, 2010 (UTC) It isn't? The wikipedia article said something about Moscow and the Volga. Edit: Yes it is: "Out of the twenty largest cities of Russia, eleven, including its capital Moscow, are situated in the Volga's drainage basin." So Moscow is on a significant river that flows into the Volga. And Volgograd is on the Volga. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 15:00, April 18, 2010 (UTC) The Danube passes through 4 european capitals. { unsigned } Shît Üp! —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:00, April 18, 2010 (UTC) Moscow isn't on a significant river, but it is on a river. But still, we're not arguing whether it's possible a city can be on an inland river. However, of those four European capitals (Bratislava, Vienna, Belgrade, Budapest), all of those countries are landlocked. Russia is as good as landlocked. If you want I can put Trilfuva about five miles inland at most, but what is the point of that? Unless you want to do a Lima-Callao or Athens-Piraeus thing. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 15:16, April 18, 2010 (UTC) Ottowa is inland, Mexico City is inland, Paris is inland, London is inland, Madrid is inland, please make Trilfuva inland. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:13, April 18, 2010 (UTC) The history is that the ancient people in leubantia made a settlement and the pre-leubantian rebuilt it where it was, and it wasn't inland. Then the city-state annexed its neighbors and yadda yadda yadda and remained capital although it was inland. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:15, April 18, 2010 (UTC) Creburg is inland, on the Benoir river (will add that to the article someday). Sir Spart Sparklbox 16:20, April 18, 2010 (UTC) Kcãpon is inland too XD. But anyway, is it okay to have Trilfuva like eight miles inland with a port at another city? —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 16:27, April 18, 2010 (UTC) :It should be about 130-150 40-60 kilometers inland. However, there should be a port at the coast called. . . something. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:47, April 18, 2010 (UTC) 2 cents: Koiwai's on a river (:D). Rivers are usually good places to put cities because they provide food and transport. That's why a lot of the huge cities today are on rivers. Woogers(lol what ) 16:44, April 18, 2010 (UTC) Lol almost all cities are on rivers or the ocean. There is only one major city in the world without a body of water and SW would know what that is. Anyway, darn, I guess I'll have to redo the map. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 19:02, April 18, 2010 (UTC) :Limpopo and Vaal rivers? Woogers(lol what ) 19:05, April 18, 2010 (UTC) ::The only river which comes close to Jo'burg is... this other little dried up thingy, I don't even know the name. And it also runs through Pretoria, but it is dry and dirty. Panau City is on its own islands :D. Ciudad Costera is on the coast. Houston is on the coast. Baku is also on the coast. Damn, I need to make a landlocked country some time xD -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 19:12, April 18, 2010 (UTC) Ok, so Trilfuva will be about 50 km inland, and we will move Bedaldi to the coast. Sounds good? —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:23, April 18, 2010 (UTC) Okay. The answer is Johannesburg, btw. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 19:24, April 18, 2010 (UTC) FYI there is only one active landlocked country on this site and that is Lxungion. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 01:27, April 19, 2010 (UTC) There are two other landlocked countries in NRW, but they are inactive (one in southern africa, one in central asia). And san lorenzo is just barely not landlocked. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:36, April 19, 2010 (UTC) True but none of those are active. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:02, April 19, 2010 (UTC) Resumption of construction If no one else says anything, expect for Stalinist grandeur in the coming weeks. Woogers - talk ( ) 02:50, September 8, 2010 (UTC) Sure. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:51, September 8, 2010 (UTC)